Tom M: Cannibals are long and standing tradition in debates in the discipline of ethics involving reducing arguments to the absurb, mostly because it's a non controversal argument, since nobody likes to be eaten.

But canabalism is illegal, hence not the same thing.

But okay, I'll "bite." Let's change it, to let's say Buster went to California and met a family of marajuana growers, an activity frowned upon by the federal government and larger country but tolerated locally. Disregarding questions about the legality of said practice, because it's not pertinant to the analogy, would the secretary of education be justified in such criticism?

Actually I think that one should be more controversial because of the illegal nature of growing pot. Two women or two men raising a child is not illegal in and of itself.

It's also not exactly an impossible situation to encounter these days either. For jr's lil friend down the street or in pre-school to have 2 parents of the same gender (OK both might not legally be the parent but the child will probably call them both mom or dad and introduce them as "my parents") so it's not like the show is pulling something out of thin air that's not going to happen and lead some parents to have to answer the question "why does johnny have 2 dads and no mommy?"

Sesame Street: While not feeling especially inclined towards defending the world before my birth, I'm sorry, but the existance of black people was not controversal in 1973. And your analogy is bad.

No but tolerance of them was. Lots of people didn't want black families moving in down the street from them. They didn't want their little kids having black friends. Kids watching Sesame Street saw black kids and white kids hanging out together as friends and seemingly living on the same street with no problems. Certanly a controlversial subject at the time.

R: The Port Huron Statement was a self rightous liberal document that seemed to go on forever. Boasting about your superior virtues of tolerance and the light of reason is being compared to complaining about the inauthentic meaning of american life. Plus, it only works on other liberals. To me it sounds like "Dirka dirka Hillary Dirka Dirka Wrong war dirka dirka jihad"

Nice team America America reference and an ironic one no less, since that was a joke making fun of American ignorance, that they didn't even try to make it sound like real arabic since it's all gobbly gook if it's not English anyway.

I agree that the pot example is bad: Marijuana is illegal. In Vermont, anyway, a homosexual married couple is not illegal.

Ok Since in my absence Tom and others have taken all the good arguments I'll just say these few things.

It is censorship when the government or an official of said government removes the ability for a person to decide for oneself if somethign is harmful or not. If somethign would be offensive or not. That is something best left up to an individual to decide for themselves and their children. And I am generally referring to books, videos, movies televsion and other forms of communication. Ideas and thoughts must be free to be evaluated by all peeople.

As for the Taliban statement. AFAIK the Afghani Taliban where relgious fundamentalists who imposed a dictatorial state based on their narrow interpretation of their religious moral codes. Unfortunately there are too many in the christian religious "right" who would like to do the same here in the united states. So the term Christian Taliban is quite appropriate and descriptive of their agenda, behavior and attitudes.

And I have to agree that your comments about the solution to the GLBT issue sounds very close to 1930's nazi germany.

Regardless of the specific example used in the reducto ad absurdum argument (cannibals, pot growers, etc.), this type of argument makes no sense in the context of this issue, because it can be used equally by both sides. To wit: "If the secretary can't object to a gay couple, then she can't object to graphic depictions of bestiality" or "If it is acceptable to object to a gay couple then it must also be acceptable to object to an interracial couple or a couple of a minority religion".

The question should not be whether the Secretary has the right or responsibility to object to any hypothetical material, but rather whether her objection to this particular (reportedly) neutral presentation of a gay couple is acceptable.

I am disturbed that merely showing a gay couple is considered some sort of subliminal promotion of a homosexual agenda. After all, my local news reports about assaults and murders but I don't think that they are promoting violence. I also don't think that a young child seeing this show would really register the fact one way or the other. I doubt that a five year old knows what goes on sexually between his/her parents (of whatever orientation), or even has a concept of sex other than a vague idea of 'special hugging' or something. I really doubt that seeing two women that live together would cause a child to assume that they have sex and lead them to question all their previously held beliefs about their own sexuality.

If the Secretary objected to the show because she truly objected to the content, then I am disturbed that she seems to want to deny the simple existence of gay people. If she objected because she feared possible controversy, I am still disappointed. It would seem to be a perfect opportunity for families to teach their children about right and wrong, if nothing else: "See those women, Johnny? They are sinners because they defy the Lord's commands." [irony]If nothing else, the religious right could use them as a bad example [\irony]. (or should that be \ irony{If nothing else, the religious right could use them as a bad example}?

I am a proponent of self-censorship. Such as, if I don't want my kids watching this, I should have the right to do so, and as this was a non-compulsory program, I have the right to do so. So I am satisfied.

I'm not sure I understand you there Mike. This was a non compulsory program as in no one is forcing you to sit and watch Buster (Unless you have kids who love the show and who would go through the walls if they where denied it ;-) ) But it was a bit compulsory in the way the Secretary of education basically forced PBS to not run the show. So I am not satisfied that I did not get the opportunity to watch (or not watch) the show to decide for myself.

If nothing else, the religious right could use them as a bad example

And yeah I was just thinking that as well. Why doesnt the Christian Taliban want to have shows like this so they can use it as examples of how wrong and horrible these kinds of people are. Oh yeah thats because if these kinds of shows did go on then it would show homosexuals as nothing more than people just like anyone else.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I felt that the government should have let the people decide. By "satisfied," I meant I didn't really care if PBS ran the episode or not because I have the ability to self-censor.

Yep. The problem is that people don't want to push the "OFF" button themselves, or they think *other* people won't push it, so they want the .gov to do it for them.

Exactly ScottN. Too many people feel that if they dont want to watch it because they are offended by it or disagree with it then no one else should be able to watch it.

And thank you for clarifing MikeC I wasn't certain which way you meant. Given your previous comments it would have seemed unusual at best for you to agree with governmental censorship.

Going back to the cannibal question, and taking it as a serious inquiry rather than an attempt at "argumentum ad absrudun":

Tom M: Point taken, but let's use an classic argumentum ab absurbum and let's say Buster visited a group of cannibals. And let's say, they were shown in a neutral light. And let's say the secretary of education lodged a protest over that, would that be justified?

Well, Buster is sitting in the position of an anthropologist visiting and studying new cultures. If an anthropologist produced a documentary for adults about a tribe of cannibals, I would have no problem with it, provided it was not too graphic. If he produced a version of the same documentary for children, which did not show, or even mention, the cannibalism, I would have no problem with that, either.

Tom M: I was rephrasing your argument, mocking if you will.

Cricisms concerning an analogy are only valid if they actually concern the topic being discussed by the anology, which is as follows, An activty not liked by the federal government nor the general populace, but tolerated locally. Since marajuana is too problematic for you, let's say Buster visited the child of a Nevada legal Prositute? Would the SOEd has a reason to complain? Or, let's say Buster visited some friends out in Elohim City?

Brian F:
Sesame Street: Your anology is bad because the circumstances of 1970 and 2005 are not the same, or even similar. In fact, if you are, you are saying that Gays raising children will result in Heterosexuals leaving to the suburbs in mass droves, leaving the courts to forcibly bus them in from the other side of town. If the purpose of intergration was to provide better education for blacks, it failed.

Team America: Frankly, my point was that the Left's use of Humanitarian ends to justify everything they do does not comprise a real argument, (Heck, I've heard nuclear spies use it to justify treason) and sounds like endless bable, just like Arabic (at least as my grandmother spoke it)

R: Is the government censoring Bob Jones University then? Because by your standreds it is. The government is trying to hide whatever ideas, regardless of what they are, from the general public, by withdrawing funding.

Your Taliban anologies are again flawed. The Taliban are the same as every other extremist revolutionary who were willing to place ideology over human life in their pursuit of their perfect society, including the Roundheads, the Jacobins, the Bolshiveks, the Nazis and the Weathermen. The only reason the Taliban used Islam, is because it is the dominant philosophical theme of their culture. Why are you comparing a militant group that emerged from 20 years of civil war, from a alien culture to a group of your own countrymen, who's dangerous views are what? That we have too many abortions? Too many divorces? Too many children born out of wedlock? That they take the status quo position on Gay marriage? That they are concerned for the moral health of this country? That they want to decide if they should pray on school property or not? That they want to use the democratic process to settle these issues? I'm failing to see how wanting to turn the moral clock back to 1971 constitutes a widespread regime of murdering women?

Team America: Frankly, my point was that the Left's use of Humanitarian ends to justify everything they do does not comprise a real argument... and sounds like endless bable...

Not unlike Bush's attempt to justify war on humanitarian grounds in Iraq?

Actually from what i can tell of the Christian Taliban ,or as you prefer to call them the religious right, they want to turn the clock back to more like 1671 or so. I have not seen any indication that they want status quo for Same gender Marriage, from what I have seen and heard they want to outlaw same gender marriage or anything even remotely resembling it. My sister in law has publicly and loudly stated that she would like to see Homosexuality itself made illegal. Not to mention feeling that certain books should be burned and that government censorship using appropritate guidelines (read relgious) would be an essential thing to a good country.

That they want to institute a government in place of the constitutionally designed fairness and put a theocracy in place where morals and behavior are controlled and dictated from a big central government.

The founding fathers realized and came from a country where they saw how dangerous that sort of government is. The constitution seperates all official establishment or recognition of religion in this country. So technically this country has been a godless country from the begining as there is no official relgion and it is left up to each INDIVIDUAL person to decide, not the government, if they want to have relgion or not or what kind.

Basically the individual should have more power to decide their lifestyle within reasonable universal secular rules than the government. Marriage is between two adults who love each other the government should not determine marriage restrictions as anythign other than age (A minimum only no maximum), relationship (as in family blood ties), and that is it. ONLY TWO criteria are valid in determining a marriage. Not gender, not religion, not ability to reproduce. Maybe ability to support self or family would be good but unfortunately there are too many variable for that.

I think your sister in law represents a fairly extreme version of Christianity.

Matt, it would be wrong if Buster visited a prostitute if the episode focused on any aspect of prostitution. As far as I can tell, the real-life episode did not focus on any aspect of lesbianism.

Unfortunately a version that has more adherents and appears to be growing. I was using my sister in law as an example but there are at least three other people I personally know who feel the same.
And as my brother in law is a preacher at a non-denominational christian church she is not alone as his official stance and what he preaches about from his pulpit is quite the same.

newurl{http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/25170.html?1107145759,Back in December} See the posts for Dec 18 and 21.), I mentioned that the the new anti-gay amendments were hurting more than just gays, and that in Utah the legislature was attempting to correct the worst of the problems that. Well, it turns out that the arch-conservatives in the Utah Senate have defeated that bill 18-10.

Called the Mutual Dependence Benefits Contract, the bill wouldn't have applied just to gay couples. It would include people over the age of 18 who lived together and weren't married. The sponsor cited examples where elderly couples lived together but didn't want to marry for financial reasons, or siblings who lived under the same roof, or two widows who split the cost of a mortgage. If the bill had passed, such adults could have registered together with the state health department and avoided having to pay for a lawyer to get extra legal protections.

........

Conservatives said they had their suspicions about the intention of the bill. At a Senate Republican Caucus meeting, one of Amendment 3's original sponsors, Republican Representative LaVar Christensen from Draper, lambasted the bill as a kind of Trojan Horse for gay rights. "I'm sure gay couples would like to ride the coattails of two widows to advance their cause," Christensen said.

It occurrs to me that if we can get certain people interested in the fact (and the slogan) that they hate the gays so much that they are "willing to toss out their own grandmothers," then the politicians would soon find themselves between a rock (the voting bloc R calls the Christian Taliban) and a hard place (the voting bloc known as AARP).

Actually whats funny is I'm not the one who first called them that. I heard one of the guys in my car club say that then saw it in a diamond star motors blog out in webland from someone else.

Correcting the first paragraph of yesterday's post:

Back in December See the posts for Dec 18 and 21.), I mentioned that the the new anti-gay amendments were hurting more than just gays, and that in Utah the legislature was attempting to correct the worst of the problems that. Well, it turns out that the arch-conservatives in the Utah Senate have defeated that bill 18-10.

----------

Now on to today's news:

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City.

In New York, the State Supreme Court is the normal trial level, and not the final appeals level, so there are certain to be appeals of this decision. This places New York in the same position that New Jersey was in a year ago, having made an initial ruling and awaiting the necessary two levels of appeals. Arguments in the first level of appeals in New Jersey were heard last December, but the decision of the Appelate Court has not yet been announced.

Of note in the New York case is the fact that one of the plaintiffs is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 when (because of the landmark decision Perez v Sharp) California was the only state to recognize interracial marriage.

The Consevative and Religious media are beginning to react to Judge Ling-Cohan's ruling. Crosswalk.com reports the story remarkably even-handedly, sticking to the facts.

The Family Research Council, and its president, Tony Perkins on the other hand, have released a rambling and confused statement.

While decisions like judge(sic) Ling-Cohona's (sic) are usually overturned, it will only take one such ruling that stands, to wreak havoc on our society, redefining the institution of marriage and denying children a mother or a father.

On its face this decision on a comparison between same-sex 'marriage' and interracial marriage shows this ruling lacks merit. Prohibiting a man and woman of different races from marriage was wrong. It was wrong because they were prohibited from marrying even though they met the definition of marriage. Same-sex couples do not meet the definition of marriage. To allow them to marry would require marriage to be redefined. Does a judge have that kind of authority?

In December, I reported that a judge in Arkansas struck down a policy which forbade a person or couple from applying as foster parents if there was a GLBT person living in the household. The ruling was based on the agenccy overstepping its mandate from the legislature, rather than on constitutional grounds, and so certain legislators planned to sponsor a new law extending the mandate to include the policy.

They have recently decided to re-word the laws to remove specific references to homosexuals. The new wording prohibits the state from placing a child in the foster care of an unmarried adult who is cohabitating "in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage" under the state constitution.

I assume that they are trying to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Right off the top of my head, however I can see two constitutional problems with this legislation.

First, how will they determine whether a couple are "cohabiting in a relationship," and not just sharing expenses without violating their Griswold privacy rights?

Second, this word actually makes it easier for a GLBT couple to prove discrimination. If an opposite-sex couple should be rejected for cohabiting without a valid marriage, they can simply get married and re-apply. The GLBT couple cannot marry.

Today is Valentine's Day. It is also the focal date of "Freedom to Marry Week." Today around the country same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, even knowing they would be turned down.

Scotland has a new law to allow "Civil Partnerships" effective Dec 5 of this year. It looks like these will be Vermont-style civil unions, with all of the government rights, responsibilities, and privileges of marriage, but avoiding the M-word.

Apparently, the law was not passed by Scotland's Parliament, but was passed on to Westminster for approval by a mechanism known as a Sewell motion. This allows the elected MP's to avoid taking responsibility for unpopular legislation they consider to be necessary.

More news stories on the Civil Partnership Act have started coming in. It seems that it affects all of the UK. I'm still not sure exactly what a Sewell motion is, but it looks like it's not something that can be invoked at will, as I assumed from the article I linked to in my last post and the quick Internet research I engaged in suggested.

Can any of our UK members help me out here?

Citizens of Topeka, Kansas are voting today on a city ordinance to bar the city from protecting GLBT persons from discrimination. I don't know the exact wording of this ordinance, but I can't see how this is not in direct violation of the Romer v Evans decision.

The primary rationale the State offers for Amendment 2 is respect for other citizens' freedom of association, and in particular the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality. Colorado also cites its interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups. The breadth of the Amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them. We cannot say that Amendment 2 is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "Class legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ."

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
Romer v Evans

"Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." Mitt Romney

In a letter to the editors of the Scoop, a New Zealand "independant news" outlet, a reader named Garnet Milne presented the following "reasons" (I would consider them hysterical stereotypes, but then his agenda is not mine):

This relationships bill will also attribute the title “parent” to homosexual couples of children who may not even be their own offspring. In the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (1988 No 4), the definition of a child has been changed to include being a daughter or son of a civil union partner. Similarly a parent now comprises anyone who “is in a civil union with the parent”. This is a transformation of a culture. Parents were once man and wife, now children will have to submit to homosexual “parents”.

If the blood relative parent dies, then the same sex civil union partner presumably becomes the sole parent. Thus the frightening spectre of a homosexual parent raising some one else’s child may now become common. A sexual pervert will now have the approval of law to possess custody of small vulnerable children. One can easily imagine a scenario where a homosexual parent will marry another homosexual so that the child is now legally under the control of two strangers, both sexually perverted.

Peter David made an interesting blog entry yesterday on gay marriage, and you might be interested to read it and/or jump in. Of particular interest to me is his March 3, 2005 02:15 PM post.

Since I did not vote against gay marriage, I don't know if I am the most qualified to comment on this, but within a religious setting, divorce is acceptable for various reasons, most notably adultery.

If you have an opinion, you're qualified.

I'm posting this here, but it could just as easily go in an abortion thread if PM had one.

Maine is considering passing a law protecting unborn gay children.

The bill, LD 908, would make it illegal in Maine to abort a fetus that is known to have the "gay gene." Anticipating a future day when scientists might clearly identify such a gene, Rep. Brian Duprey claims he introduced the bill to prevent women from ending pregnancies based on their fetus' projected sexual orientation.

EqualityMaine, however, says the bill has nothing to do with preventing discrimination.

"[Duprey's] bill is ludicrous and offensive, and it is fundamentally wrong to exploit the discrimination of gays and lesbians in order to promote an anti-choice agenda," said Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine. "This bill is a feeble attempt to drive a wedge between groups and individuals who have worked together to protect and defend a woman's right to choose and eliminate bias based on sexual orientation."

In two cases in two days, judges in Ohio have ruled that that state's anti-same-sex amendment invalidates the portion of the domestic abuse laws that apply to non-married couples (including cross-sex couples).

On Wednesday, Judge Stuart Friedman ruled that the state could not charge Frederick Burk with felony domestic violence, and reduced the charge to misdemeanor assault.

"Judge Friedman's opinion misses the point. The Constitution is not an invitation to strip legal protection from the most vulnerable in our community," Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.*

Eric Stern, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, the largest group of LGBT Democrats, blamed the Bush administration and others who supported anti-gay state constitutional amendments that passed in 11 states in November.


"Instead of protecting families, as President Bush and Republicans claimed these measures would do, these amendments actually undermine the stability of the American family," he said in a press release. "As we see in Ohio, the ramifications of these amendments extend far beyond discrimination against same-sex families."

Yeah and the reaction by many groups on both sides has been quite interesting here in Ohio. The religious nuts are either claiming that there should be no special exceptions for any sinners or that good (ie non GLBT) people should be exempted from the amendment. Conservatives are saying that the amendment wasn't intended to stop domestic violence prosecution.

Meanwhile GLBT groups are saying that this is exactly the kind of backlash and mistake that the mendment would lead to.

So all in all things look to be quite fun here in the heartland.

religious nuts are either claiming that there should be no special exceptions for any sinners

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to keep religion out of politics.

Pass another law.

So the law making the law legal to make the action illegal has been made illegal by the law making the law illegal? Got it.

OK forgot to mention this over the weekend. In Franklin COunty on Friday (Columbus our state capital is in that county) declared that the state amendment was not intended to interfere in the domestic violence laws. Even if the couple involved does not have a marriage liscence.

This strikes me as recognizeing or at least giving them status of marriage which is against the amendment as it is rather clearly written (whihc is unusual in lawmaking)

Just seen on the news a second cuyahoga county judge has agreed that under issue 1 the domestic violence laws do not apply to unmarried heterosexual couples either.

Sorry for not providing the links but I'm a mechanic not a computer whiz.

If you are talking about Thursday's ruling by Judge Moore, I mentioned and linked to it in my post on Friday. If you mean another new case, it would be the third.

OK somehow I missed that. AFAIK (Which may or may not be much right now thanks to food coma) there are 2 judges in cuyahoga cnty who say issue 1 affects the domeestic violence laws (IN that it only applies to legally married people) and there is one judge in franklin cnty who disagrees and says otherwise.

So 2 to 1 against issue 1. Somehow I think things will get annoyingly ugly.

PBS's Frontline is running a report on Karl Rove this week. Every American voter should be required to watch this. It reveals the tactics Karl Rove uses to win elections. Since his days in college, he's been interested in using "dirty tactics". He has resorted to one "hot button" issue, over and over, to stir up conservative and Evangelical voters; gays. He used it against Anne Richards in Texas (She hires GAYS !), against McCain (he sympathises with GAYS), Kerry (those same-sex marriages in Massachusetts), etc.

A hundred years ago, a hot button issue to scare up votes in the South was blacks. Todays bigots have found a new "threat", gays. It really is disgusting that Republicans appeal to the worst in voters. Those same type of pious demonstrators who were outside of Schiavo's hospital are the same type who would show up at Mathew Shepard's funeral with "Die in hell fag" signs.

More than a few people are tired of Christian bigots and the party that panders to them.

Those same type of pious demonstrators who were outside of Schiavo's hospital are the same type who would show up at Mat[t]hew Shep[p]ard's funeral with "Die in hell fag" signs.

I think you mean "Burn in Hell." Their kind already made sure he died. (I'd add a smiley to show that I don't mean the critisism too seriously, but it might be taken to mean I don't take the subject too seriously, and this is too important.)

Not to make light of this, but since most of the people in Hell are dead. One cannot actually die in Hell. (Hey, this is Nitcentral after all.)

Remember the ST:TOS episode "Elaan of Troyus" and the pheremones in Elaan's tears? The question of whether there really are human sexual pheremones has been contrevesial for decades. A couple of chemicals have been long suspected of being pheremones: AND, distilled from male sweat, and EST, distilled from female urine.

In Sweden, a test was recently run to test this theory. They took 36 volunteers, 12 heterosexual men, 12 heterosexual women and 12 homosexual men, and took PET scans of their brains as they sniffed several substances including lavender oil, cedar oil, AND and EST. In all substances, areas of the brain that process odors were stimulated, but the AND and the EST also stimulated areas of the brain associated with sexual arousal. The thing is, only one of the substances stimulated these areas. For the heterosexual men, it was the EST, for the women and the homosexual men it was the AND.

one story
second story
third story

Now the small size of the volunteer pool and the small variety in the characteristics in both the substances (I would also have included several commercial perfumes -- blended specifically to attract others -- and also chocolate) and the volunteers (include lesbians and more variety in in backgrounds) make the results somewhat less than reasonably certain, but it does seem to point out a biochemical difference in the brains of straight men and gays. This in turn suggests that it is not just a question of "choice."

What about the vomero nasal organ? Haven't there been other studies that show it is stimulated by pheromones? I have an episode of Disovery Magazine on tape that I believe indicated as much.

I seem to remember that organ arising in a discovery magazine issue as well luigi.

Back in January, I posted about a Catholic school in California that was having trouble with many of the parents because of the decision to enroll two five year old boys whose parents were a gay couple.

That same school has just fired the principal, a nun who had dedicated 31 years to the school, and issued new rules that gay parents cannot attend school functions as a couple.

Some parents say Sister Mary Vianney, the school's principal for 31 years, has not had her contract renewed after she objected to the new attendance requirements.

"She has basically dedicated her entire adult life to St. John the Baptist School and the children and families there," said Suzi Brown, the incoming president of the parents auxiliary. "To think that her tenure with the school is coming to an end in this fashion is devastating."

......

In January, officials at Costa Mesa's St. John the Baptist School adopted new admission guidelines that require parents to display "appropriate conduct, in order to support the school's mission and provide positive role models to our students."

The May 6 memo, obtained by The Times from a parent at the school, states: "Practically speaking this means: The children adopted by a same-sex couple" may enroll "on the condition that the same-sex couple agree not to present themselves as a couple at school functions."

.......

Lawyer Michael J. Sundstedt, who represented more than 30 parents who questioned the boys' enrollment, said Vianney ought to step down immediately.

"It's sad the nun is leaving, but I also think that it may be the best thing in the long run if she is impeding the teachings of the church," he said.

............

The parents held a candlelight vigil Saturday and have asked Orange County Diocese Bishop Tod D. Brown to intervene.

............

Instead of praying for Brown's intervention to save Vianney's job, "this parish would be better served if they would have a prayer vigil in support of the teachings of the church," Sundstedt said.

"Practically speaking this means: The children adopted by a same-sex couple" may enroll "on the condition that the same-sex couple agree not to present themselves as a couple at school functions."

Does that mean that divorced couples can't enroll kids at the school, since the Cathlic Church does not allow divorce? Or what about a couple where one partner has been married before, according to the church that person is commiting adultry.

Those situations are (presumably) a large part of the reason why Sister Mary accepted the boys' application in the first place despite the objections. But of course the other parents and the school officials who kowtow to them don't think logically.

I wonder how hard it will be for the boys themselves in the future at that school. If the old head is kicked out, and a tough ones comes in (and if the parents of 30 other children are against them) ... all the time, the teachers will tell these boys that their parents are living in sin, doing deviant things etc. The teachers will be watching them for any signs of "deviancy" they might display. The other kids will taunt them, because their parents taught them their own prejudices.
Probably it would be better for the boys to go to another school, no matter how good the scholarly level of the catholic school is.

On Tuesday, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appelate Division finally published their ruling in Lewis v Harris, the same-sex marriage suit.

The decision by the three member panel was 2-1 against the plaintiffs.

Writing the official "majority" opinion (although since Judge Parillo wrote a separate concurring opinion, it would mean that this is just his own opinion), Judge Stephen Skillman wrote:

This court indirectly rejected the view that same-sex
couples have a constitutional right to marry in a decision
sustaining the validity of provisions of the State Health Plan
that denied health benefits to same-sex partners that were
extended to spouses of married public employees. Relying
upon decisions in other jurisdictions that have rejected samesex
couples' claims of a constitutional right to marry, we
concluded that the determination whether to extend the same
benefits to same-sex partners as to spouses involves "political
and economic issues to be decided by the elected representatives
of the people."

.....

In sum, the right to marry is a fundamental right that is
subject to the privacy protections of article I, paragraph 1, of
the New Jersey Constitution. However, this right extends only
to marriages between members of the opposite sex. Plaintiffs'
claim of a constitutional right to State recognition of marriage
between members of the same sex has no foundation in the text of
the Constitution, this Nation's history and traditions or
contemporary standards of liberty and justice. Therefore, we
reject plaintiffs' claim under the substantive due process and
privacy protections of the New Jersey Constitution.

We turn next to plaintiffs' equal protection claim. In
determining whether the State has violated the equal protection
guarantees of article I, paragraph 1, our courts employ a balancing test that considers "the nature of the affected right,
the extent to which the governmental restriction intrudes upon
it, and the public need for the restriction." Thus, the "crucial" threshold step in the
required constitutional analysis is identification of "the
nature of the [claimed] right."

In contrast, the essential question in this case is whether
same-sex couples have any constitutional right to marry. For reasons set forth at length in section I of this opinion, we are
satisfied that only members of the opposite sex have a
constitutionally protected right to marry. Therefore,
plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their threshold burden to show
the existence of an "affected right," and for that reason the
State is not required to show that the "public need" for
restrictions upon that right outweigh plaintiffs' interest in
its exercise.

.....

The only opinion by a member of the Court [The Supreme Court of the United States] that directly
addresses whether the Fourteenth Amendment may be found to
compel recognition of a right of same-sex couples to marry is
Justice Scalia's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. In dissenting from the
majority's holding that a Texas statute making it a crime for
two persons of the same sex to engage in certain types of
intimate sexual conduct violated the Due Process Clause, he
stated:
Today's opinion dismantles the structure of
constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual
and homosexual unions, insofar as formal
recognition in marriage is concerned.

However, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion rejected this
contention, stating:
[This case] does not involve whether the
government must give formal recognition to
any relationship that homosexual persons
seek to enter.

........

Although same-sex couples do not have a constitutional
right to marry, they have significant other legal rights. Samesex
couples may seek to adopt children together, their right to engage in sexual
relations is protected by both the United States and New Jersey
Constitutions,
and they may
enter into domestic partnership unions under the Domestic Partnership Act that entitle them to many of the same legal
benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. Moreover,
domestic partners may assert claims that the due process and
equal protection guarantees of article I, paragraph 1, of the
New Jersey Constitution entitle them to additional legal
benefits provided by marriage. A time may come when our society accepts the view that
same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If there were such
an evolution in public attitudes, our Legislature presumably would amend the marriage laws to recognize same-sex marriage
just as it recognized the increasing public acceptance of samesex
unions by enacting the Domestic Partnership Act. However,
absent legislative action, there is no basis for construing the
New Jersey Constitution to compel the State to authorize
marriages between members of the same sex.

I join in the majority decision essentially for the reasons
so clearly expressed by Judge Skillman. I write separately to
underscore the nature of the right being asserted, the
continuing viability of the State's interest in preserving its
originating force, and the proper divide between judicial and
legislative activity in a matter of such profound social
significance.

......

The rights of marriage - the so-called secular implications
- are actually not contained in the marriage laws under attack,
which simply delineate which persons may not marry each other, but rather are conferred by a host
of statutes not here in issue. Unquestionably, the economic,
legal and regulatory benefits incident to a marriage license are
significant. But, as Judge Skillman's opinion points out, many
of these rights and protections are afforded to committed samesex
couples under our Domestic Partnership Act, as well as evolving case law that recognizes, among
other privileges, the right of same-sex couples to seek to adopt
children together. Of course, to the extent those laws unconstitutionally withhold any of the publicly-conferred
tangible or intangible benefits of marriage from same-sex
couples, plaintiffs remain free to redress any such deprivation
on an ad-hoc basis, by challenging the particular statutory
exclusion resulting in disparate or unfair treatment. In fact,
it would seem a much more effective approach to address the
claimed denial directly, rather than to simply advance the
notion as an additional basis for finding a constitutional
mandate for state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Any societal judgment to level the playing field must
appreciate the proper divide between judicial and legislative
activity. "[L]aw has a purpose and a power to preserve or
change public meanings and thus a purpose and a power to
preserve or change social institutions."
In this vein, it is the Legislature's prerogative to define and
advance governmental ends, while the judiciary ensures the means
selected bear a just and reasonable relationship to the
governmental objective, or, in the case of suspect
classifications or fundamental rights, are supported by
compelling State interests. It is, therefore, a proper role for
the Legislature to weigh the societal costs against the societal
benefits flowing from a profound change in the public meaning of
marriage. On the other hand, the judiciary is not in the
business of preferring, much less anointing, one value as more
valid than another, particularly where, at least in the
foreseeable future, the conflict is not susceptible to
resolution by scientific or objective means. The choice must
come from democratic persuasion, not judicial fiat.

2C:30-6. Crime of official deprivation of civil rights
2. a. A public servant acting or purporting to act in an official capacity commits the crime of official deprivation of civil rights if, knowing that his conduct is unlawful, and acting with the purpose to intimidate or discriminate against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity, the public servant: (1) subjects another to unlawful arrest or detention, including, but not limited to, motor vehicle investigative stops, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or (2) denies or impedes another in the lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

Although my colleagues and I arrive at a different
conclusion, we are in agreement that any individual views we
have on the morality or social implications of same-sex marriage
must play no part in our analysis of the constitutional issues
presented. In the ongoing public debate there are persons of
intelligence, sensitivity and good will on each side of the
issue. Some believe that lawful marriage between persons of the
same gender would undermine the essential nature of both
marriage and family life. Others argue that it would give
proper recognition to committed same-sex relationships and by
doing so enhance marriage. Our function as judges is to
interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it, and our
interpretation must be principled rather than skewed to fit an
individual philosophy or a desired result. Nonetheless, we must
interpret our Constitution to uphold individual rights,
liberties and guarantees for all citizens even though our
conclusion may disappoint or offend some earnest and thoughtful
citizens.

.......

The right to marry is effectively meaningless unless it
includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice.
The United States Supreme Court
struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal
Constitution, invalidated a Wisconsin law requiring
a person under a child support order to meet financial
requirements and seek court approval in order to marry. Prison
inmates cannot be foreclosed from marrying a person of their
choosing, who is either inside or outside the institution.

Statutory restrictions on the right to marry are few, and
they are grounded in the State's proper regulatory authority,
commonly called its police power, to protect general health,
safety and welfare. Marriage is prohibited to a child, a close
relative, a mental incompetent or a person afflicted with a
venereal disease in a communicable stage. None of the plaintiffs in this case fall within these
proscribed categories, and neither the State nor the majority
opinion suggest a reason of health, safety or general welfare to
justify a prohibition of their right to marry the person of
their choosing.

......

My colleagues and I agree as to the fundamental nature of
the right to marry, but they reject plaintiffs' constitutional claims by defining marriage strictly as heterosexual unions. By
this definition, plaintiffs are not deprived of the right to
marry as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex. But
since they cannot marry the person of their choice, it is really
no right at all. By so defining marriage, the majority views
plaintiffs' assertion of a right to marry as a claim of a
different kind of right or to a different kind of marriage,
which is beyond judicial authority to recognize as lawful. This
analysis mirrors decisions in other jurisdictions which have
summarily rejected similar constitutional claims based on other
State constitutions.

The argument is circular: plaintiffs cannot marry because
by definition they cannot marry. But it has the advantage of
simplicity. If marriage by definition excludes plaintiffs from
marrying persons of their choosing, then, unlike all others,
they have no fundamental or constitutionally protected right
and must seek creation of that right through the political
process and a legislative redefinition of marriage. Therefore, opposite-sex marriage is a tautology. Same-sex marriage, an
oxymoron. We need go no further. Case closed.

I disagree with both the analysis and the result. To cabin
the right to marry within a definition of marriage which
prohibits plaintiffs from even asserting a constitutional claim
for entitlement to marry the person of their choosing robs them
of constitutional protections and deprives them of the same
rights of marriage enjoyed by the other individuals of this
State, even those confined in State prisons.
After recasting the issue as to whether plaintiffs' claim
fits within the restricted definition of marriage, not
surprisingly the majority finds no support for marriage between
same-sex persons that is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history
and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"
and thereby declares that plaintiffs have no fundamental right
of marriage.(emphasis mine)

The analysis is reminiscent of arguments in support of
anti-miscegenation laws before Loving. Those laws defined
marriage as the union of a man and woman of the same race, and
proponents presented a long history in support of the
definition.1 Indeed, in Loving the State of Virginia argued that there was no fundamental right to interracial marriage because
"the historic tradition of marriage" did not contemplate such
marriages. In rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court framed
the issue not as a claim of right to interracial marriage but
rather as an assertion of a fundamental right to marriage.
The Court declared that the right to marry
was one of the "basic civil rights of man" and could not be
restricted or prohibited by racial classification. Therefore, while
Loving rejected a prohibition of marriage based on race, the
analysis is relevant to the instant case because Loving also
rejected a definition of marriage foreclosing an individual's
right to marry a person of one's choosing and addressed the
issue of the constitutional viability of the restriction in
terms of the fundamental right to marriage itself rather than to
a separate right or different form of marriage. (emphasis mine)

......

Two New Jersey cases are cited by the majority in support
of its position. ... The other case, M.T. v. J.T., is cited and quoted
for its support of the historic understanding of marriage as the
lawful union of a man and a woman. Interestingly, M.T. was
both. Born a man, he cohabited with J.T. in a homosexual
relationship for five years and then underwent transsexual
surgery which involved removal of his male sex organs and the
construction and placement of "a vagina and labia adequate for
traditional penile/vaginal intercourse." Id. at 80. M.T. and
J.T. later married in New York and continued their cohabitation,
this time as husband and wife, for two years in New Jersey
during which time they regularly engaged in sexual intercourse.
Id. at 79. After they separated, M.T. filed a support complaint
as a non-working wife. J.T. countered that he had no obligation
to pay support because M.T. was in reality a man and that
therefore their marriage was void. We held that M.T. was a
woman, that the marriage was valid and that she was entitled to
support for the following reason:

Plaintiff has become physically and
psychologically unified and fully capable of
sexual activity with her reconciled sexual
attributes of gender and anatomy.
Consequently, plaintiff should be considered
a member of the female sex for marital
purposes. It follows that such an
individual would have the capacity to enter
into a valid marriage relationship with a
person of the opposite sex and did so here.

I gather from M.T. that a relationship qualifies as a
lawful marriage if the genitalia of the partners are different
so that they can engage in sexual intercourse. Accordingly,
history and procreation are irrelevant provided surgery is
successful, and the new woman and her partner are then entitled
to a constitutional right to marry that neither he nor she had
in the pre-op room. Constitutional rights should not be limited
by genitalia or the ability to engage in a particular form of
sexual intimacy.

I forgot to include a link to the full ruling.

I just realized something: Judge Parillo claimed that the Court cannot over-rule the legislature unless the plaintiffs are members of a suspect class (which he denies applies here, despite the clear language of the law), but he referenced M.T. v. J.T., which upheld the right to marry of a transgendered person, who is not a member of a suspect class (but should be).

Previously, on a discussion from the RM homosexuality board which has become more politics than religion:

Which leads me into this. You want to know how we can all live together. Shut up and recognize that homosexuals are humans too and deserve all the rights, priviledges and freeoms that everyone else does. R
Homosexual practice is a matter of personal life, which Christians are not trying to affect or alter. Alteration of Marriage is something that will affect the entire culture, including Christianity. Zarm
And if a civil union equates to a marriage in a legal sense what harm is there in just calling it a marriage and stop tiptoing around it.
Okay then, nix the Civil Unions. Once again, I mean a legal-benefit arrangement which would not step on the Marriage tradition or institution. If such an arrangement would be agreeable to the Homosexual side, I'm fairly certain it would be agreeable to the Christian side as well.
.....
I've acknowledged this several times before. Where we differ is the consideration of whether same-sex marriage is a 'right.' Otherwise, no one is advocating denying homosexuals the rights, priveleges, and freedoms that everyone else has... the only debate is whether one of those freedoms is to marry any person you choose (of the oposite gender), or to marry whoever you choose (regardles of gender.)
Again, I ask, specifically, how does a secular marriage between two committed, loving, gays threaten the institution of marriage? ScottN
Again, I respond: It would destroy the meaning of Marriage (capitol M deffinition-see last board), and constitute a cultural and moral shift that would make valuing the traditional Marriage/family difficult at best.
I've asked this before, but I think you stopped posting here around the same time. What if the government got out of the "marriage" business altogether? It would still provide the opportunity for a public roclamation of a couples' commitment to one another and the legal benefits, but there would be no marriages, just civil unions. Churches would still be free to "marry" couples according to their own rules, in separate ceremonies, but these ceremonies will not affect the couples legal standings. me
Hmmmm... I don't know that it would be a popular idea with many... but it's sounds like a good idea to me!
While I wouldn't be too upset about that, (My wife and I got our liscence then had the traffic court judge preside over us in a civil ceremony at the end of his docket.)
...just so long as they are all called by one name: marriage which is what most people would call two people living together in that manner no matter what the piece of paper said.
Well, you two are about the only ones that I have ever asked that question who responded in a way that indicated that you would actually vote for the proposal if it were offered.

For most people, the question makes them realize that there is a big, if somewhat hard to define, difference between a marriage and a civil union. And that is why I agree wiyh you that the unions will continue to be called marriages even if the "official" name were changed, just as (talk about a bad choice of comparison) we continue to call the crime "aggrevated sexual assault" by the older, more visceral name "rape."

Resuming the debate:

Zarm, several times, you have asserted that "Christians" would have little or no trouble accepting a civil union for same-sex relationships. You even went so far as to say that you could see abolishing civil marriage altogether in favor of civil unions for all relationships, a position you admit might not be acceptable to all Christians.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Most politically active conservative Christians not only would have trouble accepting abolishing civil marriage, but also in accepting a parallel, "separate but equal" civil union. Most of the state constitution "marriage amendments" have included phrases specifically forbidding civil unions and any other kind of "marriage equivalent" legislation they can think of.

In several states, the amendment was challenged on the grounds that any single amendment must be about only one issue. The contention was that there were voters who voted against same-sex marriage, but who might have accept civil unions or other lesser remedies. The conservative judges have ruled that denying same-sex couples anythe "legal benefits of marriage" was a single issue.

In Ohio, because of the wording of the amendment, judges were forced to dismiss domestic violence charges against violent live-in boyfriends because they were not actually married to the women they abused.

In "family-friendly" Utah, some moderate legislators wanted to amend some laws that would be affected by the amendment in ways that had not been anticipated. More conservative legislators shot down the attempt, declaring that they were not going to allow homosexuals to "come in the back door," hiding behind the skirts of two widowed grandmothers living together to share expenses (one of examples the moderates used of "innocent people" who would be affected by this anti-gay amendment).

As far as destroying the meaning of marriage, or not falling in line with the "traditional definition of marriage," -- Horse manure! (If you'll forgive the expression).

There is no single "traditional definition" of marriage, especially not of civil marriage. Every culture has its own concept of the meaning and purpose of marriage, and it changes as the culture changes. Just 150 years ago, marriage did not include slaves. (Sure there was "Jumping the Broom," and some masters allowed a preacher to bless a coupling, but these had no legal force, and the families of these "marriages" could be broken up and sold just as easily as any other slave family.)

Just 50 years ago in many states, a White could not marry a person of another race, but in many places, persons of different "colored" races could marry, and a half-white bastard child was no more a stigma to the mother or to itself than any other bastard child. (In other words, miscegination laws were not about keepng the races separate, but about ensuring that mulatto children were never to be treated as equal to white children.

In medieval times, marriage among the landed classes was entirely about dynastic politics, and children of both sexes were betrothed and married to further their parents political goals. Among the lower classes, it was often unheard of (in a lagally recognized sense -- although there was a growing movement in the Church to promote religious ceremonies.

Historically, there is a way to reduce the demands for same-sex marriage: abolish womens' rights. When women are the chattel property of their husbands, there have been almost no demands for same sex marriage. The only time in Western history that the demand for same-sex marriage was during the late Roman Republic and Early Empire. Back then, as now, marriage was seen as a contract between equals. Likewise in all cultures that recognize marriage-like relationship between a man and another person (one who is physically male, but who is not considered to be a man -- in some cultures these person are eunuchs, in some they are specially dedicated priests, and in some they are just recognized from an early age as different from other boys), the other person even before the relationship begins, is seen as someone without all the rights of a man, and so he is not debasing himself to act like a woman in a marriage-like arrangement.

And therein lies the real danger of parallel "separate but equal" instituions of opposite-sex civil marriage and same-sex civil unions. History has shown us that the longer parallel institutions remain separate, the less equal they become.

Who ever said anything about denying housing or employment?!? I have been soley refering to the 'right' of homosexual marriage, a soley 'homosexual-based' issue that is under contest.
There is no such question or issue about whether housing or employment fall under basic human rights; there also hasn't been any discusion (from either I or anyone that I know) about denying these rights.
(Which is another one of those annoying myths; the desire to preserve marriage in it's current form equals some sort of desired 'ban on homosexuals.' Whether their actions are considered sinful or not, nobody but those would truly deserve the term 'fanatical' have the desire to prevent homosexuals from practicing what they choose, or recieving the same treatment as any other member of society.) Zarm (on the RM board)

This seems to say that the only political problem that you have with what is sometimes called by conservatives "the homosexual agenda" is the same-sex marriage question. Fair enough. If you say that is your only concern, I'll believe you despite the statements you have made that can be read otherwise. I'll just assume I read too much into them.

But when you claim that the same is true of all conservative Christians, and that it is a "myth" that some Christians want to "prevent homosexuals from practicing what they choose, or recieving the same treatment as any other member of society," you are wrong.

The author of Oklahoma's gay-marriage ban, Republican state Sen. James Williamson of Tulsa, also authored a bill forbidding the state and all the municipalities from adding sexual orientation to "protected classes" (which include race, religion, national origin and sex) in any antidiscrimination laws. He was quoted as saying: "If a Christian couple here in Oklahoma doesn't want to rent property to openly in-your-face homosexuals, they should have a right to do that." Likewise, two Kentucky legislators sponsored a similar bill for their state. And also in Topeka, Kansas. The only motive for laws are to ensure that the GLBT can be discriminated against, as even Representative Williamson admitted.

Until this past year, it has been assumed that the issue had been laid to rest back in 1996 with the publication of the Supreme Court's ruling in Romer v Evans, which struck down Colorado's attempts to pass the same kind of legislation. Apparently now, the conservative politicians are apparently hoping that with enough of the federal government on their side, they can get away with it.

Thank you TomM for pointing these things out. I am just a plain ol country boy who is trying to do his best to keep too many plates spinning at once to remember all this stuff.

But yeah Ohio has had a bad year with all this. The fight to repeal article 12 in cincinnati which permitted discrimination against homosexuals, the ban against anything but 1m/1w traditional marriage. Such fun.

A little anecdote from my exgirlfriend after she got religion and during the fight against the marraige ban. I told her that it would deny domestic violence charges against unmarried liveins. (The opponents to the ban had already realized what some of the side affects of it would be) Her response well they shouldnt be living together and shoudl just get married. This from someone who had been living with her boyfriend for about a year.

I was just watching the 10oclock news and just had to post this. It belongs more in politics than relgious as it involves the law IMO.

The same relgious groups who managed to get the anti-homosexual marriage law passed here in Ohio (They have stopped even hiding it and openly call it that themselves) are now wanting to get a ban on homosexuals being foster parents or adopting. It just gets worse. Whats next the pink triangles.

Two important news articles: One Canada has made same gender marriage legal all across their conutry. Yeah for them and congratulations on being an enlightened and forward thinking country. Now if only the US would catch up.

But with a piece of hopeful news from Kalifornia, who knows. The Kalifornia supreme court has let stand a law passed giving same gender couples most of the same rights as other married couples.

While the new Cali law is the most comprehensive of all the state laws short of full civil marriage/civil union rights in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont, it still has a long way to go, and most states still give give absolutely no consideration at all.

Last week, on the RM Homosexuality Board, I mentioned the re-training camp for "troubled teens" (LGBTQ teenagers) in Tennessee. The news publicity was so strong that the State was forced to "investigate" the camp.

Last week, Tennessee's Department of Children's Services investigated reports of child abuse at the Refuge program run by Love In Action International, an organization that believes homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals through various types of therapy.

Refuge "treats" people between 15 and 18 years old.

......

The Department of Children's Services could not say whether it found "Zach," or even if he really exists.

"DCS dispatched its special investigations unit to the facility, and after conducting a full investigation, determined that the child abuse allegations were unfounded," said Rob Johnson, an agency spokesman in a quote published by the Associated Press.

......

Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have strongly discounted reparative therapy, saying it is an unsound practice that can hurt those who undertake it.

Oops!! That acronym in my last post should be DCS not DSC.

Still it is better than nothign and a first step in full equality. Any step forward is better than a step backwards like the definition/defenders of marriage wanna do.

I am not surprised that the CT wants to have a concentration camp like that continue running. I wonder how much money was donated to the right pockets to look the otherway. You know if it was a liberal run camp the CT would have made sure that there where more govt acronyms running around there and getting ready to torch the place and hang the people running it than ever seen in one place before. But since it is a good approved church run place it must be all right no matter what.

I still say it looks like child abuse and that camp should be razed to the ground.

Yes the Spanish parliament has legalized same gender marriage.

So that makes 4 countries that are better enlightened than the united states.

World Stats on Same Sex Marriage

Oh and yes, you should be pleased when a child takes it first steps, but you should not be satisfied.

Oh believe me I am not satisfied there is still much work to be done. Much work indeed before true freedom and equality is universal. Much hatred and bigotry and closedmindedness to overcome. But some small steps forward are still better than any steps backward.

Hey - they left Germany out again! What's the problem here? Are we less important than the Netherlands?? Is it because the legal text calls it not Marriage?

here is a link of the history of homosexuals in Germany. (in german, though.)

this link has info in english

The law about "Eingetragenen Partnerschaft" (registered Partnerships - but everybody calls it Homo-Marriage) was passed in August 2001. Although some of the backwards counties (among them, sadly, black-ruled Bavaria) challenged the law to the Constitutional court, it was ruled legal in 2002.

Constanze --

The site I linked to apparently considers Germany's laws more akin to California's and New Jersey's Domestic Partnership laws (which it did not include as "marriage")than to Vermont's and Connecticut's Civil Union laws (which it considers "marriage with an asterisk")

R --

I think we are on the same page, it's just that our emphasis is different. You were praising California for at least some forward movement. I was showing concern because of the ruling earlier this month here in New Jersey.

The official ruling specifically considered declaring the suit moot, because the Domestic Partnership law, which was passed and which went into effect during the course of the legal action, gave them "many" of the rights they were suing for, (Since when is less than half "many"?) and repeated that stance in justifying the ruling against the plaintiffs.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature enacted
the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers
substantial legal rights upon same-sex couples who enter into
domestic partnerships corresponding in many respects to the
rights of opposite-sex couples who marry. This new legislation,
which was enacted on January 12, 2004 and became effective on
July 10, 2004, is based on legislative
findings and declarations that "[t]here are a significant number
of individuals in this State who choose to live together in
important personal, emotional and economic committed
relationships with another individual;
that "[t]hese familial relationships, which are known as
domestic partnerships, assist the State by their establishment
of a private network of support for the financial, physical and
emotional health of their participants;
and that "[b]ecause of the material and other support that these
familial relationships provide to their participants, the
Legislature believes that these mutually supportive
relationships should be formally recognized by statute, and that
certain rights and benefits should be made available to
individuals participating in them. The
Domestic Partnership Act also contains a legislative declaration
that:

The need for all persons who are in domestic
partnerships, regardless of their sex, to
have access to these rights and benefits is
paramount in view of their essential
relationship to any reasonable conception of
basic human dignity and autonomy, and the extent to
which they will play an integral
role in enabling these persons to enjoy
their familial relationships as domestic
partners and to cope with adversity when a
medical emergency arises that affects a
domestic partnership.

.......


As a result of enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act,
which extends many of the economic benefits and regulatory
protections of marriage to persons of the same sex who enter
into domestic partnerships, plaintiffs may now avoid many of the
adverse consequences of being denied the opportunity to marry
alleged in their complaint, such as denial of the right to
participate in family insurance plans, denial of hospital
visitation rights, denial of the right to make health care
decisions when their partner is incapacitated, denial of the
right to bury and control the disposition of a partner's
remains, and denial of the benefit of the protections against
discrimination provided by the LAD, by entering into domestic
partnerships. The record does not indicate whether any of the
plaintiff couples have entered into or plan to enter into
domestic partnerships because the case was heard in the trial
court before enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act.
Consequently, this case does not involve any claim of a denial
of constitutional rights to same-sex domestic partners on the
ground that they are not afforded all the benefits and rights of
opposite-sex married couples. Rather, plaintiffs' claim is that
even if the Domestic Partnership Act conferred all the benefits
and legal rights of marriage, the New Jersey Constitution would
nevertheless compel recognition of same-sex marriage.

I had missed the news about new jersey. That is rather unfortunate in the way NJ read that law.

TomM: I was showing concern because of the ruling earlier this month here in New Jersey.

Nit: Today is July 1. There is no earlier this month. I think you mean early last month.

Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain, two law professors at Hofstra University have written an article for FindLaw, which explains much better than my poor attempts above, just why the decision in Lewis v Harris, New Jersey's same-sex marriage case, was bad law.

Judge Skillman wrote the opinion for the court in Lewis, holding in favor of same-sex marriage opponents. In that opinion, the court emphatically rejected the blueprint set forth in Goodridge for considering the constitutionality of excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. The court rejected, too, the reasoning of Baker v. State, a 1999 decision of the Vermont Supreme Court that led to the establishment of same-sex civil unions in that state.

Why did the court reject Goodridge's logic?

One answer is that the majority opinion in Goodridge carefully explained that even though many people hold deep religious convictions about marriage, the court's proper focus was on civil marriage -- an institution created by the state. It thus separated the two dimensions of marriage. In contrast, the Lewis court repeatedly blurred the religious and legal dimensions of marriage.

.......

The New Jersey court's opinion also cites language from an out-of-state 1971 case, Baker v. Nelson, stating that "the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." (This case rejected a challenge to Minnesota's marriage laws).

This mingling of the civil and religious dimensions of marriage surely renders the court's opinion vulnerable to reversal. It's true that many in society find the religious and secular aspects of marriage indistinguishable. But from the point of view of the law, the practice licensed and authorized by states is purely a civil status.

No church ceremony is required as a prerequisite to establishing such a union (nor could one be, under the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution). And the Establishment Clause would also disallow the state from asserting, as the interest justifying its marriage laws, the goal of upholding any particular set of religious values.

.......

A second difference, too, separates the majority opinions in Lewis and Goodridge: while Goodridge used the expanding panoply of rights for same-sex couples as evidence of the irrationality of withholding marriage from them, Lewis used the same expansion to opposite effect.

In New Jersey, the Lewis court pointed out, same-sex couples can register as domestic partners and receive a certain, fixed set of personal and economic rights attendant to that status. Thus, due to the domestic partnership law, same-sex couples are not denied all the benefits of marriage. (Joanna Grossman has written about the New Jersey domestic partnership law in a prior column.)

.......

The Lewis court also suggests that the lawmakers' decision to create a "domestic partner" status - but, notably, not a "marriage" status - shows that the public is not ready for same-sex marriage. That may be true (polls would support such an assertion), but in the past, the public was not ready for desegregation either. Yet the constitution mandated it.

More generally, the constitutionality of a state statute has never been thought to turn on public opinion. Protecting disfavored groups against the tyranny of the majority is one of the most important functions of a constitution embodying guarantees of due process and equal protection. Such rights are needed precisely because public opinion might otherwise ignore due process, and allow - or even institutionalize - inequalities.

.......

What about the argument that even if procreation isn't unique to opposite-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage is, at least, the optimal forum for child-rearing?

This simply isn't New Jersey's view. Lawmakers and courts across the country -- including, notably, in New Jersey -- have taken steps to facilitate parenting by lesbians and gay men through reforms of adoption, custody, and visitation laws. That would suggest that they believe that other family arrangements might also be beneficial for children.

.......

In his concurring opinion in the New Jersey case, Judge Parrillo makes an even more dramatic appeal to the marriage-is-procreation argument. The concurrence specifically criticizes Goodridge's characterization of commitment as the sine qua non of marriage. It warns that this "distillation of marriage down to its pure 'close personal relationship' essence strips the social institution 'of any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological, or sexual satisfaction which the relationship brings to the individuals involved.'"

Marriage, Parrillo concludes, manages the fact that "there are two sexes." Its purpose is "not to mandate procreation but to control or ameliorate its consequences."

This argument that marriage "manages" the sexes sounds disturbingly like a much older and extremely invidious one - which held that marriage serves the supposedly important public purpose of ordering relations between the sexes. At the time, the "order" imposed was that of a hierarchical relationship between man and wife - in which the man was dominant and the woman lacked the most basic rights.

Today, constitutional norms of sex equality would bar a return to this kind of "order." So, too, should they bar the imposition of an "order" that excludes same-sex couples.

The dissent's portrait of the seven couples who sought to marry in Lewis illustrate why this is an unnecessarily harsh choice. As was true in Baker and Goodridge, the plaintiffs were couples living in committed relationships; parents rearing biological, adopted, or step-children together; active members of their communities; and committed partners sharing together the responsibilities and rewards of family life. For them, any harsh public/private distinction was, and is, artificial. Rather than viewing those families as having nothing to do with the goods and purposes linked to marriage, the better approach (as adopted in Baker) is to include them in "the family of state-sanctioned human relations."

The double quotations marks are used here because Parrillo himself is quoting from Daniel Cere, the Director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture at McGill University. Cere further notes what he believes to be the importance of marriage's broad embrace of "the fundamental facets of [traditional] conjugal life: the fact of sexual difference; the enormous tide of heterosexual desire in human life, the massive significance of male female bonding in human life; the procreativity of heterosexual bonding, the unique social ecology of heterosexual parenting which bonds children to their biological parents, and the rich genealogical nature of heterosexual family ties."

.......

If one doubts that Cere's point is to return to the past, one need only consult a just-released report, The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America, which was co-authored by Cere's Institute. This report argues that contemporary conflicts over family law rest on a deeper conflict between two competing visions of marriage: the older (and to the report's authors, superior) model of conjugal marriage and the newer (and to the report's authors, deeply troubling) model of marriage as merely a "close personal relationship."

The report uses striking language about marriage as a way of life involving the "struggle" to bridge "sexual difference." Marriage, in their eyes, is a way of regulating otherwise unruly heterosexual desire - a desire that otherwise causes "immense personal and social damage." Heterosexual marriage, in the eyes of the report, is meant to avoid "the passive, unregulated heterosexual reality [of] multiple failed relationships and millions of fatherless children."

In effect, the report offers a new variation on a familiar theme in defense of traditional marriage: marriage is society's way of taming men. To be sure, the report appeals to an "enormous tide of heterosexual desire" (not just men's desire). But in the end, this tide, the authors believe, is harmful because of men's - not women's - irresponsibility with respect to intimate commitment and children and women's vulnerability due to pregnancy and motherhood.

Will this ominous picture of heterosexual life emerge as a persuasive contemporary justification for why marriage must remain a unique relationship between one man and one woman? It remains to be seen, but we hope not.

Even if this vision did carry the day, how would allowing same-sex couples to marry hinder the institution of marriage from managing this heterosexual sexual ecology?

Indeed, why wouldn't a similar argument about managing desire and channeling it into socially constructive avenues (like long-term, marital commitment) pertain to the benefits of marriage for same-sex couples? (Indeed, some supporters of same-sex marriage extol its potential to channel or domesticate homosexual desire.)

TomM,

The site I linked to apparently considers Germany's laws more akin to California's and New Jersey's Domestic Partnership laws (which it did not include as "marriage")than to Vermont's and Connecticut's Civil Union laws (which it considers "marriage with an asterisk")

Of course, they can classify as they like... but since our right-wing conservative party with religious touch (CSU) raised hell and went to Court about it (and the Catholic Church, too), claiming it would destroy hetero marriages; and since most people call it homo-marriage (Schwulen-Ehe) - I thought it should be counted.

Oh, and I noticed *after* I posted that the ILGA site is seriously out of date - they haven't updated the info beyond 1999. Sorry - most of the sites in depth are in german, and when I googled in English, I didn't find many neutral, in-depth reports.

Of course, they can classify as they like... but since our right-wing conservative party with religious touch (CSU) raised hell and went to Court about it (and the Catholic Church, too), claiming it would destroy hetero marriages; and since most people call it homo-marriage (Schwulen-Ehe) - I thought it should be counted.

All of that is equally true about other Domestic Partnership laws that have not made it into the lists. The one I linked to last week also left out Sweden and Denmark, presumably for similar reasons.

One minor point. I don't know whether or not you are aware of it but in English when "homosexual" is shortened to "homo," even as a combining form, it is almost always pejorative. So unless Schwulen-Ehe is also usually meant pejoratively, a better translation (even if it is not precisely literal) might be "gay-marriage."

TomM,

no, I didn't know that. (I try to abbreviate when typing long posts, anyway.)

In German, homosexual, or homo as abbreviation of it, is considered the more neutral word (more poltical correct, if you will). Though some activistis call themselves Schwule und Lesben (Gay and Lesbians), I think in normal conversations, it's too much of a mouthful... But it makes for interesting acronyms...

I'll try to remember in the future to use gay-marriage.

The Transgendered are a different group (or rather a collection of different groups) from the gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. They are often forced together in the "gay-rights" fight because the ignorant in the mainstream with their "one man-one woman" philosophy see them as "just" another variety of "homosexual pervert." Because of this, laws that restrict homosexual rights usually affect the transgendered as well.

Most transgendered, however, are not homosexual at all. (More specifically, these groups include homosexually oriented members at the same low rate as the rest of society.) There are many different groups under the "transgendered" umbrella. The three largest groups are the trans-sexuals, the fetish* cross-dressers ("transvestites"), and the inter-sexed†. The only thing that these three groups have in common is that many gender laws discriminate against them.

I bring all this up because there is a case pending in the 10^th District US Court of Appeals (which covers Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming) concerning workplace discrimination against a trans-sexual (MTF).

Krystal Etsitty was fired from her job with the Utah Transit Authority. Neither gender orienation (which would cover gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals) nor gender identity (which would cover the trans-gendered) is a "suspect" (protected) class under federal laws (Although they are under a few state laws, Utah is not one of them.), but there are some laws and court rulings that offer the hope of legal protection in Etsitty's case.

Under a key Supreme Court ruling, for example, it is illegal for an employer to demand that an employee live up to a particular gender stereotype. Issued in 1989, that ruling came in the case of an accounting firm, Price Waterhouse, which rejected a woman for partnership because she was too masculine. According to the high court, Price Waterhouse's insistence on classic femininity was a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


In the 15 years since the Price Waterhouse case was decided, numerous cases involving effeminate gay men and transgender employees have reached the federal courts, where many judges have been uncomfortable with taking the Supreme Court precedent to include LGBT subjects. Increasingly, however, the case brought against Price Waterhouse has become a powerful legal support for people who lose their jobs though a combination of factors that include gender presentation.

In the case of Krystal Etsitty, Judge Sam [Judge David Sam of the US court for the District of Utah, whose ruling is being appealed to the Circuit Court] was not inclined to take an expansive view of the Price Waterhouse precedent. There is a "huge difference," he wrote, between forcing a man or woman to conform to rigid stereotypes, and making allowances for a transgender employee. But Sam did not explain further, save to say that the "drastic action" that accompanies a sex change "cannot be fairly characterized as a mere failure to conform to stereotypes." Yet no one implied that the experience of a transgender man or woman compares to that of a tough woman or sensitive man. It was the action of the employer that was under analysis, not that of the employee, and it seems uncontested that the Utah Transit Authority demanded that Etsitty conform to a gender stereotype.

Etsitty, who had begun hormone treatments and who lived as a woman, was fired for her planned use of the women's restroom, which her supervisors at the Utah Transit Authority said would endanger the safety of other staff. The company invited Etsitty to reapply for work after she finished sex change surgery, and according to Judge Sam's ruling, did not harass her in any way.

Yet, as Etsitty pointed out in the local press, the men and women of the Transit Authority wear the same blue pants, and only one person enters a bathroom stall at a time.

Wow, and here I was not too long ago arguing that these boards didn't have to mention the Transgendered because there are no legal cases that pertain to them specifically. Shows you what I know.

I also wasn't aware that the wearing of denim jeans by females was considered "cross-dressing."

It was for many years, before the fashion designers started cutting them to fit the female frame. And there are still churches that think that women wearing trousers is an act inspired by the devil.

I'm curious how her pre-operative use of the Ladies' room would "endanger" the safety of other staff. Is it the mere possibility that they might somehow accidently see her genitalia? Or are the employers afraid that Etsitty will become aroused and attack other women? Since there is no evidence that Etsitty is a lesbian, there is no reason to suspect that she might attack women. Additionally, despite "she-male" pornography (most of which are highly faked), it is very difficult for a pre-op MTF to become aroused even when she wants to because of the testosterone suppressants and estrogen she takes.

Wow, and here I was not too long ago arguing that these boards didn't have to mention the Transgendered because there are no legal cases that pertain to them specifically. Shows you what I know.

In the recent decision in New Jersey's same-sex marriage lawsuit, Lewis v Harris, all three judges mentioned a precedent-setting divorce case, MT v JT, but only Judge Collester's dissent brought up the fact that the wife in that case was a MTF, and that they were not allowed to marry pre-op, but were legally married post-op even though both partners had been born male.

Two weeks ago (see above June 30), I mentioned that the heat that Tennessee was getting about the "Love in Action" retraining camp resulted in an (white-washed)investigation by the Department of Children's Services, which found no evidence of child abuse.

Fortunately that was not enough to take the heat off, and another agency, has decided to investigate.

The Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities wants to know if Love In Action International is conducting improper counseling sessions with unlicensed personnel.

John Smid, Love In Action's executive director, said his group does not provide psychological, drug or alcohol counseling but seeks to help people overcome sexual problems through a stronger Christian faith.

Smid said the group's programs will be adjusted if necessary to make sure they are in line with state regulations.

Counseling that would be regulated by the state is "really not our focus," he said.

yippie. Those people are sick. And prime examples of christian taliban extremeists. You know if it wasnt for them calling themselves christians there would be an outcry from ocean to ocean on this. Those people deserve to be shut down. Maybe the IRS or some other agency can keep trying until either the evil gits are destroyed or the government manages to run out of agencies.

Joe Stark, the father of "Zach" (sometimes spelled "Zack") came forward to be interviewed by Pat Robertson's CBN organization. The interview was broadcast Wednesday on the 700 Club's "news" program. (Click here for the video. The video includes the entire 1 hour "news" broadcast, but fortunately the interview is the lead story.)

After the first day, bloggers and rights advocates, being concerned for Zach's safety, removed most of the identifying chaacteristics, especially his last name, from their sites. This led the right and the mainstream press to suggest that he never existed, but was just an excuse to protest. The one positive thing about this interview is that it establishes that Zach is real.

“We felt very good about Zach coming here because… to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today,” Stark said. “Knowing that your son... statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead.”

“Zach has got a mind of his own, and that's a God-given gift,” Joe said. “And Zach will have to make those choices when he is an adult as to what exactly he is going to do with his life. But until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him. And I’m going to see to it that he has all options available to him.”

“A lot of things that Zach spent a lot of his time doing were taken away,” Stark said. “And I can see why they do it now. It's because, if you're not doing those things, then what are you doing? Sometime or other, you have to communicate with your family. And that's a big thing that has happened in our family – Zach is communicating a lot more with us.”

“To me it's not what's right and what's left, it's what's right and what's wrong,” Joe said. “My wife and I will stand by that 'till the day we die, as far as homosexuality is not in God's plan – it's wrong."

Love in Action's principles may work for some people (apparently for Mr. Smid), but I agree with the former client who says they run the risk of being extremely counter-productive, not to mention borderline abuse.

Putting this aside for now, this does raise a question (which I guess is religious in nature)? If you were a Christian parent (that did believe that homosexuality was a sin) and your child told you he/she was gay, what would you do?

I am not certain how I would react. But I'd like to think it would be the same as if a heterosexual child indicated interest in sexual things, since any sex outside marriage is sin. In either case, if the child had come to me before he acted on his interest, I hope I would show a lot more trust than the Starks did.

Masschusetts governor Mitt Romney is once again showing his contempt for his state's equal protection of the GLBT.

Instead of authorizing the printing of new birth registers and birth cirtificates, he is telling hospitals and government clerks to "just cross out the word 'father' and change it to 'second parent,'" depite being warned not by GLBT advocates, but by the clerks themselves that altering the official documents in that way will bring their very legality into question.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Gov. Mitt Romney, said Thursday that the certificates are perfectly legal.


But municipal clerks, who register and store birth records, say the cross-outs could leave the documents open to challenges by passport agents, foreign governments and other officials.


"They should not have a birth certificate that has crosses on it," said Barnstable Town Clerk Linda E. Hutchenrider, a past president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association. "They should be allowed to have a birth certificate that really looks valid."

The leadership of the Church of England is between a rock and a hard place. As the flagship of the Anglican Union (of Anglican/Episcopalian denominations), there is a lot of pressure from within, from without and from its fellow Anglicans to make a clear statement on same-sex relations. Most of that pressure is to denonce them, but as the State Church of the UK, headed by the Queen, it has to accept the Civil Partnership laws.

The statement is has finally issued is as weak a milk toast. It allows gay clergy to enter into the civil partnerships, but it expects them and their partners to be celibate.

The "sexless marriage" code for gays has been prepared by a working group headed by the Bishop of Norwich, the Right Rev Graham James.

The established Church’s complex manoeuvrings are the result of having to remain on the right side of the law while at the same time abiding by Church doctrine.

My suspicion is that it's not going to last for long, since it doesn't go far enough for the Americans and Canadians, but neither is it going to satisfy the Nigerians. Plus it's tremendously ridiculous on the face of it, since it seems a mite difficult to say that one has a "marriage" if there is no sexual intimacy within said relationship. I mean, if one were Catholic and heterosexual, this is the kind of thing for which one could unquestionably receive an annulment.

The Church of England has made a somewhat stronger statement about conducting religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex Civil Partnerships. It will not allow them to be celbrated.

In a statement, the House of Bishops, said: "Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively."

Marriage was "a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace", it said.

"Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society."

The statement said the Act left "entirely open the nature of the commitment that members of a couple choose to make to each other when forming a civil partnership".

It said not all those registering for a civil partnership would be living within the teachings of the church and therefore "it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships".

A month ago, R was praising California for having and upholding in court, the broadest Domestic Partnership package short of Carriage or Civil Unions. I chose to be guardedly hopeful.

California's Attorney General has approved, a proposed amendment to the state's constitution "protecting" marriage.

It, and two others expected to be approved by next week, are as far-reaching as those in the other states that have passed or proposed such amendments, and specifically void most of the provisions of the Domestic Partnership law.

“The impact of this amendment would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of California families by taking away nearly all the responsibilities and protections currently afforded to legally recognized domestic partners,” said Sid Voorakkara, interim campaign manager, Equality for All.

“Californians have a long history of rejecting discrimination and we are confident they will reject this attempt to single out one group of Californians for permanent second class status.”

Voorakkara said that Equality for All will mount a vigorous campaign to defeat the amendment proposals.

The summary that would appear at the top of the petitions that will be circulated for signatures similarly calls attention to how the amendment would reverse the six-year course the state Legislature has been on in extending significant spousal rights to same-sex couples.

While noting that the amendment would "provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California," it goes on to state that the measure "voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations' in areas ranging from inheritance and adoption to insurance benefits and hospital visitation."

Great. Just lovely. It figures the GD CT isnt happy unless they are destroying and trying to control someone else's life. Why can't they just keep their nose's in their own business and let other people be happy with their lives.

One thign at least the evil jerks are being honest in renaming the amendment proposal.

I tell you this is going to keep gettign uglier and uglier until people are finally fed up with the CT and tell them to get stuffed, one way or another.

And I do still feel that praising the good works was a good thign at the time. Reward good behavior and decry bad behavior.

One thign at least the evil jerks are being honest in renaming the amendment proposal.

Lockyer is hardly part of the "CT". He is not an "evil jerk". In CA, it is the Attorney General's job to review and approve petitions for ballot measures. Note that the term "approve" does not mean "approve of", but instead means "approve the form of". It was the AG's office that caused the naming change.

I'm sorry if my last post was unclear. It was the AG's office that changed the name and added the "interpretive statement" that made it clear exactly what the amendment really does. The sponsors of the amendment are not hapy campers about that.

What does GD CT stand for? I know CT is Christian Taliban, but what is GD? Is it G___ D***?

That was my interpretation.

Im sorry it wasnt my interpretation. I am glad that the AG is the one who clarified things. The ones who sponsored the bill and got it on the ballot are the ones I should have been clearer about whom I was grumping about. And it is nice to see the CT not get their way all the time. I apologize to the CA AG Lockyer for lumping them with the CT.

Yeah MikeC, GD stands for "Gol Darnit". (or rather the non PC version) I was a bit grumpy. We have no ac in the back offices (even though the dealership has said they will fix it for the past two months now) and it got to 105 in the garage (for the third straight day). There is ac in the showroom but we are not allowed to linger up there. The mechanics got so peeved about things that they walked out and I didnt exactly do a lot of work either (mostly hiding in a car on the lot with the ac running or standing in the car wash.)

Don't worry about it, R. We be still tight.

R, my 7/27 10:20 was to MikeC regarding "GD".

Ahhh ok. I see now.

Sponsors of the California amendment are upset about the revised title and the interpretive statement and are planning on suing the Attorney General's Office.

Proponents of a measure to ban same-sex marriage promised a court battle over the language that the state attorney general's office announced Monday for the measure's title and the summary voters will see.

The title -- "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" -- and the summary written by Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office must appear on the petitions that proponents are permitted to begin circulating today. If the initiative qualifies for the June 2006 ballot, the same summary and title will appear there.

.......

Gay rights leaders praised Lockyer's office's summary, which says the measure could have a legal impact on both same-sex and unmarried heterosexual partners in numerous areas, including partners' rights to own and transfer property; to have custody of children and receive child support; to inherit from each other and visit each other in the hospital; and to adopt children, make medical decisions, and collect health and death benefits.

"It makes clear ... this amendment literally devastates hundreds of thousands of California families," said Molly McKay, Northern California field director for Equality California, a gay rights group leading the fight against the initiative. "We believe strongly that this is an incredible attack on not just gay and lesbian families, but on other couples as well."

Big surprise. They wanted to stay hidden in the shadows like the wraiths they are instead of coming out into the sunlight and telling the truth about what they want to do.

Well, if Mr. Thomasson is correct, then the description written by AG Lockyer is inaccurate. That should be changed. I also think that the people proposing the amendment should have the right to call it what they wish; it is, after all, the people's right to propose amendments.

The group said Lockyer's office's wording contains at least one error and is prejudicial.

Question for Scott or other California residents: 598,105 is an unusual number for the required signatures. Is this because 1,895 were needed to get it this far, leaving only 598,105 to make a total of 600,000? Or is it based on some archane formula involving the population from the last census?

It's an arcane formula.

From The California Secretary of State's Initiative Guide:

---

Quote:

Required Number of Signatures

In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative measure must be signed by a specified number of registered voters depending on the type of initiative measure submitted.

Initiative Statute: Petitions proposing initiative statutes must be signed by registered voters. The number of signatures must be equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8(b); § 9035) The total number of signatures required for initiative statutes, which qualify for circulation before the November 2006 gubernatorial election, is 373,816.


Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Petitions proposing initiative constitutional amendments must be signed by registered voters. The number of signatures must be equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8(b); § 9035) The total number of signatures required for such petitions, which qualify for circulation before the November 2006 gubernatorial election, is 598,105.

---

In Texas, Florisa and Virginia, among other "Red" states, there has been a rising epidemic of hate-based arson of GLBT homes and GLBT-friendly estblishments (including UCC churches)

Chuck Smith, deputy director of the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, told the PlanetOut Network that the anti-LGBT rhetoric has increased in Texas as voters prepare to consider a state constitutional amendment on Nov. 8 that would deny same-sex couples marriage rights.

“It is conceivable that the anti-gay rhetoric that is prevalent can play a factor in that,” he said. “We will be interested to see whether incidence of hate crimes has increased because of the lies and mistruths that have been spread against us to deny us our humanity," Smith said.

-------

Statewide, there is an upward swing in the amount of violence reported toward people because of their sexual orientation. In the latest state report, hate crimes based on preference accounted for 20 percent of all categories, the highest percentage ever.

-------

St. John’s Reformed United Church of Christ was burned on July 9, just days after the UCC’s national conference passed a resolution backing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. The text of the messages spray-painted on the church referred to this issue: “Gays lover,” “Lesb hell,” “UCC siners” and “sinners.”

“The writing on the wall, literally, tells the story,” Foster said, “This was a politically motivated attack because of the gay issue, and the FBI is going to investigate it.”

St. John’s is the third UCC church in the Shenandoah Valley that has been intentionally damaged in recent months.

Florisa? Is that next to Georgisa?

Tom, you raise an interesting question regarding the Attorney General's power to change amendment names. Regardless of your feelings about the amendment, one cannot deny that the group's original name was much more "positive-sounding" than the "negative connotation" that the AG's renaming inspires. I actually think that in instances like these, perhaps the amendment should remain nameless as sort of a compromise. Either that or find a safe name, such as Amendment Regarding California Domestic Partnerships.

But the origional name was a desired outcome ("The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Act") which could mean anything (make divorce harder to get who knows?) the new one was a simple discription ("Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights")

I agree that the new name is more descriptive; however:

Anything with the word "elimination" carries a negative connotation. A supporter of the act might argue that renaming it to refer to the "elimination of...rights" places on the focus on a side effect of what the amendment stipulates, i.e. the definition of marriage. Thus, there is a reasonable argument that the act might be called Definition of Marriage Amendment or something like that. Why should the AG's office get to identify what the amendment is called? In my opinion, it has a right to balk at misleading titles or undescriptive titles (so, yes, it may have a legit beef with the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" title). I don't know if it should have the right to just unilaterally rename amendments.

but if the definition of marriage is eliminating the rights of other consenting adults to have a marriage or the rights of partnership then the renaming was justified.

The way I see it and saw it here in Ohio those amendments are laced with negative connotations in and of themselves. by limiting and narrowing the scope of a legal marriage is is by default saying this is right and that is wrong because our morals say so and now our law says so too. Which is getting the state to acknowledege and support and establish somethign based not on fairness equality or justice but on a certain interpretation of a certain religion.

I see nothign wrong with an AG being able to retitle an amendment that has used pretty words to hide an ugly message.

And I have to ask why do they always call it a defense of marriage? Its not like anyone is taking anything away from marriage. (i know we went through this already but i still say you do not need to defend because there is no attack.)

The AG should not be determining whether or not the message is "ugly"--that is the people of California's job.

Ok how about the words, unfair, unjust, illegal, unconstitutional, going against the spirit of the declaration of independence, against basic human rights, smacking of the old school klan hatred style message.

The way the amendment title was written the first time the CT tried to hide the hate and anti-freedom message they where proposing. It appeared they hoped they could confuse or obfuscate the hate message so that people would vote for their amendment without realizing how much damage they would be doing. Similar to the way it went here in Ohio.

Again, it is not the AG's job to determine any of the things you list. That is for the people of California. The AG and the people proposing the amendment should work together to come up with an accurate, non-prejudicial amendment name.

Yeah I can see the proposers of the amendment coming up with an actual descriptive name for what they want. Sort of like the ghestapo saying exactly what they wanted to do to the jews.

R, please operate with at least a minimum of sense and dignity here. Last I checked, there is not an amendment on the table in any state that would round up homosexuals into concentration camps and kill them brutally in large numbers. Kindly do not devalue a great historical tragedy and overinflate a current one.

Sorry I was not meaning to say that the amendment was wanting to concentation camp all homosexuals (even if that would be somethign the CT would find enjoyable) but comparing the CT lying about what they wanted to do with their bill to what the ghestapo claimed was merely relocating the jews. No insult or devaluation of the holocaust was intended. But those who value freedom, equality and justice must stand up against the CT and those who would permit their evil to spread before somethign as horrible occurs.

At the very most, the proposers of the amendment are offering up an title that suggests their desired result ("protecting marriage"). It is not a lie, per se, it is their opinion of what the amendment does. The people of CA can choose for themselves whether or not the amendment actually accomplishes this goal.

If I'd been Lockyer, it'd have been titled: "The Impose Our Morality On Everyone Else In The State Act".

Hint: If you don't want to marry a person of the same sex (and I don't), then don't marry one. But don't tell other people they can't, and claim you're "protecting" marriage. If the institution of marriage is that weak, it doesn't deserve "protection".

Exactly. There is no real attack on marriage. Its not like there is an amendment requiring same-gender marriages or the abandonment of 1m1w marriage. Just the recognition of the love and commitment two nontraditional (who may be traditional in all other respects) people have for each other and want to join their lives together in marriage.

And it is a lie because it is saying that marriage needs protection when it is not under attack. and if marriage is under attack from someone else loving and caring and wanting to commit to another then marriage deserves to die. Anytime two people want to commit themselves to each other and take on all the responsibilities of marriage then that strengthens marriage. Not attacks or weakens it. All the CT does by their actions and lies is further alienate people.

And I gotta agree with you on that title scottN. Very accurate, definitive and the most honest one I've seen.

By that logic, any amendment should be called "Impose Our Beliefs On Everyone Else in the State Act." If you don't like it, read the amendment over and vote no on it. The title of the amendment should be objective.

Pardon me, I'd have title it the "Impose Our Religious Beliefs On Everyone Else In the State Act".

Nevertheless, it's still a subjective title.

Everythign is subjective especially religion.

You are right MikeC some amendments would wind up with the first title ScottN mentioned. There are a few that would not but they are generally handled more by regular laws than amendments to a constitution.

However I would appreciate amendments that are originated because of religious means or reasons to be labeled as such as they have a less valid reason for existing than many other amendments.

Less valid how? Your opinion?

What, pray tell, is the matter with the title "Amendment Concerning Gay Marriage in California" or "Amendment Concerning California Domestic Partnerships"?

Less valid from a scientific, secular, constitutional or legal standpoint. As they are only from one particular interpretation of one particular religion and relgion is the second largest cause of hatred, death, war and conflict the world has ever known.

The problem is how do the amendments concern these things? Most voters never make it past the title on the ballot. Either from the amendment or issue being worded in such a way as to be unable to be understood by anyone short of a law school grad (and even then sometimes i wonder) or sheer laziness. The title should be able to be a one line summary of what the bill is about.

One-line summary: "Amendment Concering Gay Marriage in the State of California." The bill is about gay marriage. A clearly worded description of what the amendment is about will follow. There.